Readers' comments

So many contradictory statements in such a short article.
The ANC claims to be non-racial, yet resorts to racial head-counts to ensure the "correct racial balance", not to mention its racist affirmative action policies.

Whites can "hardly complain" about the overwhelmingly black support of the ANC, the implication being that they are expected to vote for the ANC, a party that can be described as their "current oppressors", whereas blacks can't be blamed for not wanting to vote for the DA, a party which they "associate with their former oppressors," ignoring the fact that the DA is the successor to the liberal and anti-apartheid Progressive Party, while the former National Party, the party of apartheid, has been absorbed into the ANC. No surprises there - the ANC and Nationalists are natural ideological bedfellows.

"Although many claim to have been anti-apartheid activists, only 3% chose to vote for the ANC in 1994", the implication that anti-apartheid activists and ANC support are one and the same thing, which is nonsense. Many anti-apartheid activists were liberals, and are deeply opposed to the fundamentally illiberal and statist ANC. Liberals oppose the ANC for much the same reasons they opposed the Nationalists.

One point worth mentioning in connection with the elections is that the ANC moved swiftly to disenfranchise South Africans who fled the country after 1994 to escape its misrule (South Africans living overseas were allowed to vote in the chaotic 1994 election). These people now number anywhere between 800,000 and one million, according the the South African Institute of Race Relations. The ANC knows very well that these exiles would largely support its opposition.

Even though receiving less absolute number of votes in subsequent elections, the ANC has increased its majority. Go figure.

Why be so hard on the ANC? It encompasses the essential (African) tribal concepts that you will have a radical democracy as long as you assimilate and adhere to the rules and decisions of the tribe...irrespective of colour or origin (the author may not know, but there are Zulu clans called "Dunn" and "MacDonald"). Translated into "modern" South Africa, this would effectively mean that the English-speakers, Afrikaners, Coloureds and Indians will be guaranteed democratic rights as long as they assimilate and subject themselves to the ANC's policies and it's decisions. As long as they remain outside the ANC fold they will be regarded as enemies of "the people" and in danger of annihilation/forced assimilation. The Afrikaners faced this situation a few times in their nations short history and each time elected not to assimilate...and suffered bloody results...let's hope this time will be different! Why be so hard on Zuma, is he any less corrupt than any politician from elsewhere in the world ("the degree of corruption" needs to be defined...he might have overdone himself and might not be as experienced:-)?

Regarding the statement about all four elections since the ANC came to power being judged free and fair, one has to wonder who does the judging. The 1994 election was nothing of the kind. As David Welsh, a liberal observer noted: "None of the sanctimonious foreign observers who fell about themselves to declare it so [substantially free and fair] would for one moment have accepted the validity of an election subject to such flaws in their own countries."

Dr Anthea Jeffery of the South African Institute of Race Relations states: "The 1994 election was so chaotic that no accurate result could be computed. In the end, the ANC was accorded some 63% of the vote. This was consistent with what some opinion polls had said, but it was also out of keeping with various other opinion polls putting ANC support at less than 50%. Only a free and fair election could have provided an accurate gauge of the ANC’s electoral strength – but this the April poll had no prospect of providing."

The quality of Helen Zille as a politician of integrity is too underplayed in this assessment. This assessment glosses over the corruption cloud over Zuma himself (albeit that is was probably only raised by equally corrupt colleagues). This will always make it difficult for him to deal with corruption.

A well-written observation on South African politics but I want to tell Kinase87, that while I'm no Zuma-ist, Mr Zuma was found not guilty and he was indeed thoroughly investigated and acquitted on all charges.